GarIT wrote: » I don't see anyone being given much choice.
jasper100 wrote: » I don't see what trusting governments has to do with it. This is happening whether I like it or not.
makeorbrake wrote: » huh? Maybe you can look at alternatives or potential alternatives. Trusting (or more importantly NOT trusting) governments and third party banks has everything to do with it.
jasper100 wrote: » What are you on about? We've always had to trust banks for storing our money anyway. All that is changing is the user interface. Instead of presenting a card to a machine to withdraw cash and presenting cash to a shop we are now just eliminating the final step and presenting said card direct to a shop.
jasper100 wrote: » seannash wrote: » With?? I have already gone cashless. Debit card for everything. No new technology needed.
seannash wrote: » With??
jasper100 wrote: » What are you on about? We've always had to trust banks for storing our money anyway.
jasper100 wrote: » All that is changing is the user interface. Instead of presenting a card to a machine to withdraw cash and presenting cash to a shop we are now just eliminating the final step and presenting said card direct to a shop.
Bob24 wrote: » I definitly prefer electronic money and have been almost fully cashless for some time - I mostly only use cash for specific needs i know of in advance and plan for, and I always carry a banknote in my wallet as a backup which is only required a few times a year. But I won’t believe someone who says they are 100% cashless (or to be more precise: if that person is really 100% cashless they must be getting some annoyances do to that choice once in a while and/or making a conscious or unconscious decision not to avail of certain goods or services they would otherwise be happy about just because they can’t pay for them.
GarIT wrote: » From my position, I have to accept payment in a form my empolyer will give it. I have to pay for things in a form the merchant will take it. Other than for profit or to store savings there would be no purpose in my changing from one currency to another in between recieving and spending the money.
Bob24 wrote: » But I won’t believe someone who says they are 100% cashless (or to be more precise: if that person is really 100% cashless they must be getting some annoyances do to that choice once in a while and/or making a conscious or unconscious decision not to avail of certain goods or services they would otherwise be happy about just because they can’t pay for them.
Squozen wrote: » Bob24 wrote: » But I won’t believe someone who says they are 100% cashless (or to be more precise: if that person is really 100% cashless they must be getting some annoyances do to that choice once in a while and/or making a conscious or unconscious decision not to avail of certain goods or services they would otherwise be happy about just because they can’t pay for them. I haven't carried cash for close to a decade. Worked fine in Australia, seems to work pretty well here as well. Disclaimer: I lived in Melbourne, now in central Dublin. Outside a major city I could see myself having occasional issues.
Bob24 wrote: » Even in the city there are still situations whereby it is mandatory unless you decide to miss-out on something because you refuse to use cash. An example of regular cash spendings: I live in Grand Canal Dock on on Saturday there is a pretty good farmers market on Pearse street with fish/meat/veg of much better quality than supermarkets and reasonable prices. I could decide not to go there because I don't want to pay cash, but is it really worth losing the improved food quality standard I've enjoyed on the weekend since starting to go there? Another one where emergency cash is good to have: last summer I was having a walk in Dalkey with friends and someone mentioned going to Dalkey Island (which btw is pretty nice in good weather). There is a guy who goes there back and forth with a small boat and takes cash only. Refusal to use cash meant staying at the harbour while my friends where going to the island. This type of situations is why I don't believe people saying they manage to never use cash without making compromises in their lifestyle once in a while.
jasper100 wrote: » More and more small businesses are getting card machines though. Soon enough the small business that refuses to take card will be the one that loses out. Those with market stalls who don't have a device to accept electronic payments will soon be the ones missing out.
jasper100 wrote: » Those with market stalls who don't have a device to accept electronic payments will soon be the ones missing out.
Dades wrote: » Don't forget cash allows small traders to be 'flexible' with their accounting, too. I recently paid cash to have some work done on my car. The price would have been higher by card.
Dades wrote: » What I don't understand is how anything so volatile can replace fiat.
Dades wrote: » How do you stabilise a crypto currency? Ban speculation? Where there's an opportunity for someone to make money (e.g. pump & dump etc) everyone else will suffer.
makeorbrake wrote: » I don't think anyone who has thought it through expects one to replace the other. They each have things they do better. The tech itself has to mature, the Crypto eco system has to be built out and the right type of regulation needs to be put in place. Then we can have a reasonable expectation of price setting.
jasper100 wrote: » And how will this regulation be paid for, will my pint down the pub still be "feeless"
grindle wrote: » Given that correctly regulating cryptoassets would make the government money through taxes and encouraging new enterprises to set up shop here as well as save them money through adopting the tech as needs arise and opportunity to streamline beckons, your "pint" down the "pub" should remain "feeless" (if you're transacting using a feeless crypto like Nano) as the cost of drawing up suitable regulations would be vastly overshadowed by the net gain.
lifeandtimes wrote: » I don't get why youre so hung up on this pint and fees?
lifeandtimes wrote: » Right now I can send crypto from my wallet on my laptop to another crypto wallet of that coin instantly with no fee. That's the fact of it.
Deleted User wrote: » But if they were going to do this would they not just issue their own currency?
jasper100 wrote: » I can't see how pubs can start getting paid for pints in crypto with fees along the way somewhere.
jasper100 wrote: » Right now I can send EUR from my bank to other accounts instantly with no fee. What is so magical that crypto is offering that my bank account can't?
jasper100 wrote: I can't see how pubs can start getting paid for pints in crypto with fees along the way somewhere.
jasper100 wrote: Right now I can send EUR from my bank to other accounts instantly with no fee. What is so magical that crypto is offering that my bank account can't?
grindle wrote: » The government can issue their own cryptocurrency, yes. Are they issuing it on some known platform? If not, what are they issuing it on? Their own fork of another's coin? How is it decentralised, who is coding for them, who is securing the network and verifying transactions? This current conversation is about dumb use of cryptocurrencies, i.e. just as money (not dumb as in it would be stupid to use although that's also up for debate!) but they'll have to regulate the market as a whole in some form in order to maximise their own gains through productive use of cryptos. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this industry but cryptos have gone well beyond the stage of simply mimicking money, the tokens on the 2nd largest platform (Ethereum) are programmable contracts or apps run on a distributed VM which interact with services behind them. €2.50 a month fee to run a Nano node. Much cheaper than current card tx costs, no costs to you unless you decide to run a node. Banks make mistakes, banks suffer regular downtime, the government currently steals money from every Irish worker's wage to pay for banks who've behaved irresponsibly, banks limit the amount of money you can withdraw unless you seek their permission, banks and governments limit your movement with your own money across borders, banks are insured up to a certain point after which you're screwed, banks continue to gamble with your money for their own benefit while they toss a small slice your way, banks do not have enough money to cover an economic run, money sitting in an account is constantly devalued by inflation despite that slice of interest they may toss towards you, banks are opaque and subject to wild manipulation, banks are a single point of failure for both your access to your own money and for access to your data. Probably not an exhaustive list.